Sooner or later, each of us asks questions: am I living right? Am I building relationships with other people correctly? Is there any meaning to my existence?

Humanity has created religions and schools of philosophy to find answers to these questions. Today, science is also being involved in the search for these answers.

If you want to look for “guidance for action” in religion, you may like the ideas of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religions, the many schools of Buddhism, Taoism or Confucianism. If you prefer philosophy, you can turn to existentialism, secular humanism, secular Buddhism, ethical culture...

We will talk about one of the possibilities in more detail. We are talking about Stoicism, an ancient philosophical school, and more precisely, about the application of these ideas in the 21st century. The book by philosophy professor Massimo Pigliucci, “How to be a Stoic,” published by Alpina Publisher, will help us understand such a difficult topic.

Many people mistakenly believe that stoicism is about suppressing and hiding emotions, like Mr. Spock from Star Trek. In reality, stoicism is thinking about your emotions, the reasons for their occurrence, as well as the ability to direct them for your own good.

The main principle of Stoicism is the ability to distinguish between what is under our control and what is not. You should concentrate your efforts on the first and not waste your time on the second.

The main feature of Stoicism is its practicality. The opinion that philosophy is purely theoretical reasoning that has nothing to do with real world. In addition, Stoicism is characterized by openness to new knowledge and a willingness to criticize.

Stoicism, due to its applied nature, is well suited for both believers and non-believers. For example, the author of the book “How to be a Stoic? “, being a non-religious person, preferred stoicism to the same new atheism due to the latter’s unceremoniousness.

Principle #1: Don't worry about things outside of our control.

Stoicism recognizes that not everything depends on us. To paraphrase the author of the book, Massimo Pigliucci, a person needs to have peace of mind to accept what cannot be changed, courage to change what is possible, and wisdom to always distinguish one from the other.

Most people are bothered by the thought of things they cannot control. It's funny: these same people may well agree that there is no point in worrying about things outside of our control.

Let's say the issue of your promotion is being decided. You believe that you deserve this promotion because you have worked for the company for many years, always achieved high results, and built good relationships with your colleagues. Let's also assume that the final decision on your promotion will be made tomorrow. The Stoic approach will allow you to sleep peacefully all night and find out in the morning decision, whatever it may be.

You are calm not because you are confident in your promotion. You are calm because you know that you have done everything that is within your control, and in principle you have no opportunity to influence everything else. So why suffer from insomnia?

Because of this principle, Stoicism is often interpreted as a passive philosophy and a call for humility. This is fundamentally wrong. The principles of Stoic philosophy were adhered to by many leading statesmen, generals and emperors, that is, people who were clearly not prone to fatalistic inactivity. What distinguished them from many other people was that they were wise enough to distinguish between their goals, which were under their control, and external results, which they could influence but could not completely control.

Principle No. 2. Don’t be afraid of losing things and people

From the previous point follows the principle of non-attachment to things and people, which is also preached by Buddhism and many other philosophies and religions. And this idea is also often misinterpreted.

Often, attachment to a new phone is put on a par with attachment to to my own child or mom. It may seem that the principle of non-attachment only suits a complete sociopath.

But the Stoics did not encourage people not to love and care for their family and friends. They simply conveyed the raw, hard truth that is not easy to accept: that we are all mortal, and none of our loved ones belong to us or will remain with us forever. Understanding this truth helps you maintain your sanity in the event of the death of a loved one and calmly cope with parting with a close friend who is moving to another city. And also, by accepting this thought, we realize that it is better to enjoy the love of our loved ones and communication with them whenever possible, and not take them for granted.

Principle #3: Go beyond the biological

Another Stoic principle is the following: given that we differ from other animal species in intelligence, this obliges us to behave ethically. In other words, we should not behave like animals, because this erases our human essence, the most valuable thing we have.

Stoic ideas about ethics can be called similar to intuitionists, who believe that ethical knowledge is inherent in us - that is, we are able to intuitively make clear distinctions between right and wrong. This hypothesis is supported by the behavior of animals in their natural environment. For example, primates demonstrate the rudiments of ethical behavior when they come to the aid of unrelated individuals in trouble. It is unlikely that such behavior in, say, pygmy chimpanzees is explained by their familiarity with ethical concepts of right and wrong.

At the same time, the Stoics took something from the ideas of the empiricists (who believe that any knowledge, including ethical knowledge, can be achieved through observations and experiments), and from the ideas of the rationalists (who came to knowledge through reflection on the subject).

The Stoics adhered to the idea of ​​"age-related development" of ethical awareness. Its essence lies in the fact that at the beginning of our lives we are guided by instincts and it is they that make us take care of ourselves and loved ones. As we reach adulthood (around 6-8 years), we learn to expand our ethical awareness. From this point on, our instincts are supported by a combination of introspection and experience, that is, rationalistic and empirical approaches. According to the Stoics, the older a person becomes, the more the balance should shift from innate instincts towards reasoning.

Developing this idea, the Stoics proposed the concept of Stoic cosmopolitanism, which is conveniently represented in the form of concentric circles. The basic idea is to treat people in your outer circles the same way you treat people in your inner circles.

The process of improvement occurs when you do not limit yourself to the center of the circle, but are part of all the other concentric circles.

Stoicism was a philosophical school of the early Hellenistic period. The Stoics called physics, logic and ethics parts of philosophy. Moreover, ethics was, as it were, the crown of this teaching. The Stoics often imagined philosophy as a garden, with logic as its fence, physics as its tree, and ethics as its fruit. Logic defended physics and ethics.

Stoic teaching- logic, studied the subject of conclusions made when making statements. They also called for studying the meaning of all words in order to come to an understanding of their sacramental meaning. The study concerned the object itself, which was denoted by a word - this was done by logic, the pronunciation of the word, in which the speech and auditory apparatus was involved - the subject of physics and the word, as a product of consciousness, what ethics was involved in.

Logic was based on the theory of knowledge, the main subject of study of which was matter. The soul, according to the Stoics, has a material component that captures all concepts and superimposes them on one another. As a result, a person develops the ability to make logical conclusions. In addition, all material images pass through human consciousness. Thus, understanding is achieved by the material component of the soul and the work of consciousness.

Stoic physics considered the material and spiritual world. All material objects bore the imprint of the breath of God, who is the world mind, the Creator. The Stoics considered fire to be the primary cause of the appearance of matter, thanks to which the other elements appeared. The world begins with fire and ends with it, and there are a great many such cycles.

Stoic ethics is based on the understanding that a person cannot influence the course of external events and all that is available to him is improving his inner world. The goal of a person is to achieve happiness, which was considered by the Stoics as peace, freedom from strong desires. The Stoics considered pleasure, disgust, lust and fear to be among the instincts.

According to the Stoics, the best state for a person is apathy. Attractions are associated with desires that arise in the human mind. Therefore, you should train your consciousness to see the true and false values ​​of the universe. Since happiness is an internal state represented by the work of consciousness, no external circumstances can lead to it.

The Stoics divided all things into good, evil and indifference. Good leads to happiness, evil is its opposite, and indifference means nothing for happiness.

The Stoics considered virtues to be the basis for achieving happiness. The main virtue was a moral understanding of the essence of things, all other virtues were formed through it. Virtue must be conscious, then it becomes part of a person. A correct understanding of the nature of things leads to the emergence of harmony, and this is happiness.

Systematization and connections

History of philosophy

Stoicism is certainly the highest rise of philosophy of the times sodom(absolutely asexual body) excluding Dam. The connection with life, harmony, and logic of Stoicism even surpasses modern philosophy.

Structure of philosophy. Zeno divided philosophy into physics, ethics and logic (it was he who first introduced this word into philosophical circulation). Cleanthes distinguished in philosophy dialectics, rhetoric, ethics, politics, physics and theology. Chrysippus returned to the simpler Zeno division, both of them putting logic first, but they differed as to which of the remaining parts of philosophy to put in second place: Zeno put physics after logic, and Chrysippus - ethics. Wanting to make their division of philosophy and their understanding of the relationship between its parts more intelligible, the Stoics compared philosophy with an organism, an egg, or a garden. Logic is like a fence for a garden, a shell for an egg, and the bones and nerves of the body. Continuing the comparison of philosophy with an egg, the Stoics said that physics is like its white, and ethics is like its yolk. This means that there can be no philosophy without logic, and that it is absurd to talk about “illogical philosophy.”
Logics. Stoic logic - a study of the inner and external speech. Stoics great importance gave material expression to thought - words and speech, signs in general - hence the term “logic” itself, derived from the ancient Greek “logos” - “word”. Inner speech is thoughts expressed by internal signs. External speech is thoughts expressed by external universally significant signs. Since the Stoics, being social and sociable people, attached the main importance to the external, and not the internal (intimate) world of a person, then internal speech for them is derived from the external, internal signs- from external ones, that is, thinking to himself, a person thinks in signs of human speech and language.
Being a study of internal and external speech, the logic of the Stoics fell into two main parts - the doctrine of reasoning in the form of continuous speech and the doctrine of reasoning in the form of questions and answers. The first is concerned with rhetoric, the second with dialectics.
The Stoics solved the problem of the origin of knowledge as sensualists. They saw the only source of knowledge in sensations and perceptions of objectively existing bodies. The Stoics likened the soul of a newborn child to pure papyrus, which is gradually filled with signs only due to the fact that the child, having been born, begins to perceive the world around him. Based on sensations and perceptions, ideas are formed in our memory. The idea is weaker than the perception, because the perceived body is not present. Accumulating in our memory, repeated perceptions of similar bodies make it possible to identify repeating, and therefore essential, features of these bodies, and thereby form concepts. IN objective world nothing directly corresponds to concepts as such, there are no ideas there Plato, no forms Aristotle. Rightly believing that it is not entities as such that really exist, but individual things with their individual and at the same time repeating properties in different ways, the Stoics mistakenly thought What one cannot speak at all about the objectivity of the general. They were inclined to believe that genera and species are just subjective concepts or common names, which people use to designate similar objects and bodies. Thus the Stoics were nominalists. They are nominalistic sensualists.
The Stoics, further, distinguished between natural, spontaneously developing concepts (a child begins to think in concepts from the age of seven) and artificial concepts (technical, generic), formed as a result of reasoning according to the norms of dialectics, i.e. in the form of questions and answers.
The epistemology of the Stoics is clarified in their teaching about three moments in knowledge: about the signified, about the signifier, and about the mean between the first and second. The signified is the body. Physics studies them. Denoting - signs, words. They are studied by grammar. Words are as corporeal as bodies. The middle is nothing more than what the Stoics called “lekta” (Hesha) - “expressed”, which in relation to the signified is the idea and concept of it, and in relation to the signifier - the meaning of the word. However, these two relationships in one may not always coincide. The meaning of the word may not coincide with the idea or concept of the object, which in turn may not be cataleptic (grasping perception). In both cases we have a delusion.
The Stoics saw the basis for the correspondence of the denoted to the denoted in the fact that the words themselves were not, as Democritus thought, the fruit of an agreement between people to designate certain objects by one or another, having nothing in common with these objects having no combinations of sounds. On the contrary, the Stoics thought, words are determined by the very nature of things.
Stoic cosmogony is cyclical. Each time there is only one finite, closed and integral (spherical) world. Its integrity presupposes universal coherence and sympathy, complete interconnectedness of the smallest part of the world with the whole world. The world is a single organic whole. As in almost everything else, the worldview of the Stoics here qualitatively diverges from the worldview of the Epicureans, who imagined the Universe as consisting of an innumerable number of relatively closed and integral worlds, different from each other and located at different stages of development.
However, the Stoics also had their own idea of ​​the infinite. Infinite is the emptiness within which lies the world, the cosmos. Chrysippus defined the cosmos as “the totality of heaven, earth and the creatures on them” and distinguished it from the “All” (“pan”), that is, from the cosmos along with the emptiness surrounding it. This emptiness is incorporeal. It does not exist within the world. Inside the world, space, there are only places occupied by bodies. These places are also incorporeal. Thus, the stoics accepted the incorporeal, but they imagined the existence of this incorporeal to be different from the existence of bodies, which alone exist fully. In addition to emptiness and places, the Stoics considered time to be incorporeal.
The Stoics could not give an adequate definition of time and made the usual substitution in the history of human culture: explaining the more unknown through the less unknown, the more elusive through the less elusive, the Stoics defined time through space. According to Zeno, time is “the distance of movement.” According to Chrysippus, time is “the distance of cosmic motion.”
The corporeal and incorporeal were covered by the Stoics’ concept of “something”(“ti”)
In their teaching about nature, the Stoics also spoke about movement. They distinguished three types in it: bodies changing their places - spatial movement, changing qualities and, thirdly, tension.
Voltage - state of pneuma,...
Pneuma is not only a physical, but also a spiritual principle; the increase in its tension means an increase in animation and spirituality in the world. In the inorganic world, pneuma acts as blind necessity and causality; in the plant world, pneuma is the blind formative force of nature. In the animal world, pneuma is a rational soul striving for what is objectively reasonable.
But speaking about tension and pneuma as a physical and mental phenomenon, we unwittingly went beyond the specific physics of the Stoics into the realm of the spirit. Let's go back to the sphere of lower nature and consider the abstract-physical level of Stoic physics.
Categories. Although only bodies really exist in their places and with their movements and in their times, it is possible, according to the Stoics, to talk about the world abstractly, categorically, but without forgetting that objectively there are no genera corresponding to our categories. Abstract thinking- only a way of knowing the concrete. If Aristotle has forms of thought and forms of being, this is not the case with the Stoics. All categories are subjective. Further, the categories of the Stoics have the advantage over the categories of Aristotle that they do not simply coexist, but form a kind of sequence, so that each subsequent category expresses a concretization of the previous category. True, the Stoics have few categories, only four of them: substance, quality, state and relation.
For the Stoics, substance, or essence,- this is not at all what Aristotle had. For the Stoics, the role of substance appears to be Aristotle's primary matter. True, Aristotle hesitated and sometimes he himself called this matter essence, but he was still inclined to consider as essence the species and specific difference, which Aristotle received as independent existence as morphe (form). The Stoics had no doubt that if we are talking about essence, then such an essence must be the first, or primary, matter: “Primary matter,” says Diogenes Laertius about the older Stoics, “is the essence of all things.” Except primary matter, which they defined in the Aristotelian way: “matter is that from which everything arises”—the Stoics spoke about specific matters, about particular matters, from which certain specific bodies with qualities arise. Therefore, the second, more specific, category of the Stoics is the category of quality. By qualities, the Stoics understood the constant and essential properties of bodies, such properties that are already associated with specific particular, “partial” matters. But bodies also have transitory properties, which the Stoics expressed in the category of state. Finally, bodies do not exist in isolation, they are connected with each other and are in various changing relationships to each other. This is expressed in the category of attitude. So, there are bodies, they are in relation to each other (category of relation), have transitory properties-states (category of state), have enduring properties thanks to partial matters (category of quality), and all together consist of primary matter (category of essence).
This is the abstract, categorical, physics of the Stoics. Here we can add the concept of “something”, which we talked about above.
God of the Stoics- the same cosmos, only taken from its active, active, self-creative, intelligent side. This is still not the god of the idealist and theologian. Therefore, the Stoics did not deceive the real consistent idealist theologians, therefore later Neoplatonist Plotinus will scold the Stoics for the fact that “God introduced them for the sake of decency"having its being from matter." Plotinus is sharply dissatisfied with the Stoics because “they dare to consider even the gods as matter and in the end say that God himself is nothing more than matter in a certain state.” So the Stoic worldview can be classified as a kind of theological materialism or as a materialistic theology.
The God of the Stoics is also the god of Aristotle, not abstracted from the cosmos. The God of the Stoics is not the gods of Epicurus, exiled to the “between worlds.” The God of the Stoics, as the peripatetic Alexander of Aphrodisias emphasizes, “is in matter itself,” he is “mixed with matter.” The God of the Stoics is the active and creative force of matter itself, the creative principle in nature, the program of its activity inherent in nature itself.
In general, God, being reasonable, and thereby good, predetermines the world for good. Speaking about goals, the Stoics did not forget about reasons. Without them, nothing happens either: everything that happens is followed by something else, necessarily connected with it, as with the cause. But among the Stoics, cause, as a preceding action that spontaneously generates an action that follows it in time, is subordinated to causality as a goal, as something that, as it were, runs into time and from the future pulls it towards itself, while the cause pushes it from behind. Causing from the future is the target cause. The determinism of the Stoics (everything has its cause from the past) and their teleologism (everything has its cause from the future, and in this there is a certain plan, providentialism), reaching the particular and concrete, paralyze a person, turn him into a passive instrument of fate, although it seems would be reasonable.
The Stoics build the theodicy “justification of God” on the proof of the relativity and even illusory nature of world evil, and, in extreme cases, on the fact that if it exists, then it serves the good and the good.
Anthropology. The anthropology of the Stoics, their teaching about man, is based on the likening of man to the cosmos. Cosmology is the key to anthropology. In man there is everything that is in the world.
Stoic ethics was based on their faith in providence and in the intelligent plan of the cosmos, thanks to which all in overall good, although in parts it may be bad.
Negative emotion is lust. This is an unreasonable desire of the soul, fraught with dissatisfaction, hatred, pickiness, malice, anger, indignation, love (condemned by the Stoics for being unbecoming of worthy persons).
The Stoics defined pleasure as the irrational stimulation of oneself by something that seems desirable, but no more than it seems.
Disagreeing with the main argument of the hedonists, who, arguing that pleasure is the highest value, referred to all living things that strive for pleasure, the Stoics (and Zeno, and Cleanthes, and Chrysippus) argued that in fact All living things strive for self-preservation, to whom pleasure most often brings only harm: after all, there are a lot of harmful pleasures. At best, pleasure can only be a concomitant circumstance of self-preservation.
The Stoic is not detached from everyday life. He's taller than her.
So the Stoics are quietists. Their main ethical thesis is precisely the idea that it is not the very circumstances of our life, including social life, that depend on us, but only our attitude towards these circumstances.
Liberty. From the teachings of the Stoics about good, evil and the “indifferent”, about fate and providence, the Stoic understanding of freedom follows. The Stoics understood freedom in a slave way. It was they who launched the ridiculous idea of ​​freedom as a recognized necessity. The Stoic sage is passive, he reconciles himself with everything that happens, flattering himself with the illusion that on the whole everything is good and wonderful, and everything that happens happens according to the providence of the universal god-mind. But only wise men can understand this. Therefore, only they are free. All others, regardless of their social status, are slaves.

Philosophy of Plato (427 – 347 BC)

Plato was a student of Socrates, before whose authority both as a philosopher and as a person he always bowed. But as often happens, in the development of philosophy Plato went further than his teacher. He was one of the first to make an attempt, very fruitful in many respects, to create a universal philosophical system that would embrace the world as a single universal system with its own basis of being, its own substance 1 . He recognizes the existence of an objective world outside man, independent of our sensory perception and which exists eternally and in itself, but having its own origin and its own cause, from which everything in the world flows.

Such a fundamental principle is ideas, supersensible and supermaterial entities, objects that always exist and never become, they are constant and unchanging, in contrast to the impermanence, fluidity and variability of the thing and the material. “Ideas” have special characteristics: 1) objectivity; 2) irrelevance to anything; 3) independence from sensory definitions; 4) independence from all conditions and restrictions in space and time. (They seem to exist outside of space and time). This principle of explaining the existence of the world becomes the principle objective idealism. Plato is the founder of the philosophy of objective idealism, which had a huge influence on all subsequent types of philosophizing.

Plato recognizes the objective existence of the objective-material world, impermanent, fluid, changeable, but only as a reflection, copy, image of the supersensible world of ideas. It is as if each concrete thing must be preceded by the “idea” of the thing. A thing becomes a fragment of the objective world through the implementation of the idea of ​​a thing, as its prototype, original. (Here we can draw an analogy between a copy of a painting, a painting, and the painting itself, created by the artist. A copy can never become an original. According to Plato's terminology, things, objects are always only ghosts world of ideas, and therefore the material, changeable world can never become true peace). Plato was one of the first to introduce the concept of “becoming,” reflecting the process of things acquiring specific properties, “the quality of a thing.” That is, a kind of dialectic of the existence of the material world. He always is only becoming, without achieving its perfection, unlike the world of ideas.

Plato does not avoid the term “matter,” although in a different meaning than, for example, Democritus. He seems to place matter between the supersensible world of ideas and the sensory world of things and objects. According to Plato, the material world becomes material when it reveals its involvement to the world of ideas. Materiality, as it were, emphasizes the inferiority of the lack of independence of the material-objective world in relation to the supersensible (metaphysical) world of ideas.

Here it is worth noting the heuristic meaning of the concept of “involvement,” especially when we consider human existence. After all, a person acquires his own content of life through involvement in a certain business and action, in the realization of certain goals and ideals, etc. Then human life acquires a concrete, meaningful, definite character.

But how does the world of ideas give rise to the world of things, in what is the force expressed above the sensory world, what is it? Plato also asks this question. According to him, the creative force is the world Soul, which has an active force, the action of which is aimed at creating sensory things that correspond to the prototype of things. Plato gives an example of the creativity of a potter making a jug. Before making a jug, the “idea” of a jug must appear in the consciousness, the mind of the artist. The world soul has the energy of creative force, which acts as Mind, as universal as the world Soul. Mind is an integral property of the creative Soul, having a purely ideal character, a supersensible character. A rational Soul creates, and the act of creation itself acquires a purposeful character. (This statement of Plato was later embodied in Christian medieval philosophy). And since the specific human soul is a generation of the World Soul, it also has a mind, the action of which is aimed not at creating the world of things, but at cognizing the essence of the world of ideas.

Plato also defines the cognitive task of philosophy - discovery of the universal laws of existence of the world of ideas and achievement true knowledge about them. For him, knowledge is a complex dialectical process, and knowledge itself is neither sensory perception nor a correct opinion with meaning, “but is” knowledge in concepts through which we gain the opportunity to perceive the truth of ideas and the ideal world. In sensory cognition, the image of specific things and objects is revealed to us, and by this it limits the scope of sensory cognition. And at the theoretical level, the mind operates, operating with concepts of various kinds and types. This is actually intellectual activity, presented in the form of thinking, operating with concepts. And since the cognitive ability has immortal soul, then she seems to “remember” the concepts already given to her earlier and through them she directly beholds, contemplates the truth of ideas. Plato in some way mystifies the process of human cognitive activity. But at the same time, it also reveals the essential features of the process of cognition as a creative and contradictory process. Creative character is expressed in obsession, as an irresistible attraction to the truth. And the rational moment in knowledge is presented as an ascent from a less general knowledge to a more general one, based on the transition from particular concepts to more general ones, in which the truth of ideas and the laws of their being, their essence, are revealed. Contradiction (as a moment of cognition), appearing in thought, prompts thought to cognition of the truly existing. “... When a sensation speaks of one thing no less than the opposite, I consider it provocative,” notes Plato in his treatise “The Republic.” And resolving a difficulty, question, problem in thinking is the art of dialectics. According to Plato, it is expressed in the “gradation” of knowledge. Transition from one to another. Cognition first appears as a “dream,” a guess, and then as a judgment, a thought about something, expressed in concepts. The ascent from lower concepts to higher (most general) concepts leads to truth.

In Plato's philosophy, the ideal, the spiritual, as the highest, true essence, is contrasted with the material world, as lower and untrue. But nevertheless, according to Plato, they also find a peculiar form of compromise and unity in the form beautiful, which, on the one hand, is the highest form of sensual expression and vision of an idea; and on the other hand, beauty is capable of imparting perfect qualities and properties to the material world.

Plato also analyzes order, the structure of the ideal world, which is hierarchical in nature. The highest idea is common good, which pursues the goal of bringing good to everyone. Based on the idea of ​​the common good, he creates his famous concept, the theory of the “ideal state,” which is still the subject of debate.

Being a supporter of the slave-owning class, Plato at the same time points to the real reasons for the emergence and existence of the state. “Whatever the state, there are always two states in it that are hostile to each other: one is the state of the rich, the other of the poor,” he notes in his treatise “The State.” The forms of state, power and governance that existed in his time are, in his opinion, negative, since they pursue the goal not of achieving the common good for all citizens, but of achieving only selfish material interests. He is sympathetic to the monarchical and aristocratic forms of government (called correct), but they are not capable of implementing the principle of the common good. But he calls the worst forms of the state timocracy(the power of ambitious people seeking only enrichment and acquisitiveness); oligarchy(power of the few over the many); democracy, in which there are even more contradictions than in oligarchy; tyranny- the worst form of state, built on direct violence, it is a consequence of the degeneration of democracy.

He contrasts them with the ideal state as a truly true one, in which the principle of the common good is realized for all free citizens (but not slaves), the so-called. "good state"

The universal principle of the “Good State,” according to Plato, should be justice, which presupposes that each member of society is endowed with such type of activity and performance of such functions “for which his nature is most capable.” This “sharing of one’s own is justice” (“State”). This principle of organizing the state and society requires the most stringent regulation, control over the activities of citizens, who are, as it were, divided into three layers, in accordance with their moral virtues: rulers, warriors and guards, hired workers for conducting economic affairs. The principle of justice must be supplemented by the principle of limiting (measuring) needs, which does not contradict the principle of good and justice, and does not lead to a split in society into the poor and the rich. The supreme ruler must be philosopher, not by status, but by the nature of thinking. It is most suitable because the philosopher strives to the truth and nothing else. And this, in turn, helps to develop the necessary qualities for the ruler of a “good state”: 1) wisdom; 2) courage; 3) prudence (restraining measure); 4) understanding and sense of justice. Therefore, the calling of both the ruler and the “good state” is to care for the welfare of its citizens. Of course, Plato’s project of an “ideal, good”, most perfect state is utopian in nature, unpromising in its implementation, since it is aimed at strict regulation of all aspects of social life, preserving it in an unchanged state. Of course, Plato was the son of his class and his time, but one cannot help but see that he is one of the first thinkers who pointed out the need to observe the universal principle - the connection of morality, ethics and politics, without which the creation of a harmonious state and society based on the consent of citizens is unattainable.

In the classical period of Ancient philosophy, a special figure stands out Aristotle(Stagirita 1, 384 - 322 BC), who was the founder of an entire direction in philosophy, the Peripatetic school of philosophy 2, which later took shape as Aristotelium.

Aristotle was a student of Plato and attended his Academy. But he created his own system of philosophy, directed against Plato's position, subjecting it to critical analysis. He rejects the independent existence of supersensible ideas. They, according to Aristotle, are only forms of reflection of things in the objective world, the sensory-perceptible world. Things, objects (substrate) exist on their own, i.e. objectively and independently of ideas. But the objects of the material world, although they exist independently, before ideas, they are not yet defined in their qualities, properties, due to their inherent passivity. They seem to have the potential to become something, to acquire your own essence. The potential for things to become something, i.e. acquire status substances(that is, that which exists in itself and by itself), Aristotle denotes by the concept matter. The concept of “matter” (according to Aristotle) ​​captures the objective existence of the objective-material world in the uncertainty of its essence, in its passivity. We need some kind of force, energy, which, thanks to its creative activity, gives objects, the substratum world, certainty and concreteness. He denotes this power that has universality, the term "form" (eidos). Thanks to this form, objects and things acquire both their essence and their qualitative certainty. Aristotle replaces Plato's "idea" with the concept of "form". Therefore, any concrete thing, object is a unity of matter and form. And thanks to this unity, things become substance. It is as if they do not need anything additional in themselves (for example, ideas, like Plato) for their existence. Hence he designates being as the existence of substance in myself, but not in anything else. And since there are individual things of the sensory world, then individual existence (Being) is substance. This position of Aristotle, who oscillates between materialism (Democritus, Heraclitus) and Plato’s idealism, can be designated as “inconsistent materialism.” Aristotle's inconsistency is associated, first of all, with the difficulties and difficulties of understanding and presenting the objective world not as already ready-made, eternally unchanging reality, but as a becoming and developing system, in contrast to the unchanging world of Plato’s ideas.

How is the process of transforming possibility into reality carried out? Aristotle comes to the conclusion that only through movement and through movement does the material world assert itself and realize its potential. This is how he characterizes the processuality of the world’s existence. Movement itself is an attribute of the existence of the world. But what is the source, the cause. Encouraging the objective world to change and move? (not a simple question, since at that time movement was understood mainly as mechanical movement, as movement in space). Moreover, such a reason would be universal and general in nature. Aristotle designates it with the term “prime mover,” which is motionless and incorporeal, and also has a universal mind. In the characterization of universality that was more accepted at that time, the most suitable concept is God, who moves himself and sets everything in motion, he is boundless and infinite. And since the “prime mover” is endowed with intelligence, the movement itself acquires a purposeful, teleological character. Moving objects of the material world seem to have a purpose in themselves, and therefore everything is subject to necessity, and he calls chance something that 1) does not have a purpose in itself, 2) therefore does not have its own cause, 3) does not have a reasonable explanation (purpose is not clear and inexplicable to us). The movement of the objective world itself is continuous; from one movement another movement follows, and self-motion is the action of a cause. It’s as if the movement is “self-caused.” His doctrine of movement is enriched by the thought about the development, which is the highest form of movement, with the direction of ascent from simple to complex, from imperfect to perfect. Therefore, the active mind and soul are a product of development. Spirit, soul is a thinking spirit (synonymous with Rational Soul), a kind of “form of forms” (as if reminiscent of Plato’s “idea”).

Unlike Plato, Aristotle gives a rationalistic characterization of the nature of scientific knowledge and the ways of achieving it. He indicates that knowledge must correspond to an object, a subject. Without establishing the object, the subject of knowledge, there can be no truly meaningful knowledge. And since true knowledge is knowledge about the essence of Being, it can be expressed only in concepts and through concepts. (This idea of ​​Aristotle later, in the Middle Ages, influenced the formation nominalism). And to determine true knowledge, he introduces the principle of correspondence of knowledge to the real properties of an object and identifies the characteristic characteristics of scientific knowledge as true knowledge. Such knowledge must be based on facts, secondly, scientific knowledge must reveal the true cause of phenomena, thirdly, scientific knowledge is knowledge of the essence of phenomena and existence, essential knowledge, which is achieved only through theoretical thinking in concepts. And since at that time philosophy was the only possible way of both rational and scientific knowledge, there are special concepts - categories, the most general and universal concepts (he introduces 10 categories, such as quantity, quality, measure, relationships, etc.), and logic becomes a system of proving the truth of judgments. The process of cognition itself takes the form of a complex dialectical process climbing from private knowledge, knowledge of the individual(empirical knowledge based directly on facts), but also clothed in a system of concepts, to knowledge about generalities, about essences(theoretical knowledge in the system of categories about essence Genesis). In contrast to Plato's concept of knowledge as recollection, Aristotle views the process of cognition as the formation general concepts and categories, based on empirical knowledge and resulting from the mind’s ability to generalize the results of empirical knowledge based on the inductive method. Hence Aristotle reveals the dialectic of probabilistic and reliable knowledge in the cognitive process. Consequently, the principle of development extends to the sphere of human cognitive activity. And the process of cognition itself is the result of the development of a person’s cognitive abilities and capabilities, a person’s ability to learn. A person is more likely to acquire, rather than receive, true knowledge about something.

Aristotle extends the principle of development to the sphere of moral, ethical and political life of Ancient society, which is also based on the principle of developing true knowledge about something. Thus, in the sphere of political life, a more perfect form of government is not monarchy, not aristocracy, not tyranny, not democracy, which degenerates into ochlocracy (the rule of the mob), but civil government, polity, in which the affluent, educated middle class plays a leading role. The purpose of the state is to ensure the attainability of the common good and a good life (this cross-cutting idea for Antiquity), as highest value, which is based on the knowledge of true and genuine virtues. On the basis of them, such qualities are formed in citizens, especially managers, which would lead to the achievement of true good on the basis of justice. Aristotle puts forward the concept of the ethical ideal of a person who strives for good on the basis of reason, and not on the basis of will and passions, who is able and knows how to observe moderation in everything in order to preserve the harmony of existence of both man and society.

4. Hellenistic ancient philosophy: Epicureanism and Stoicism

(III century BC – III century AD).

Now we will look at the main features of the last period of ancient philosophy, designated as “Hellenistic philosophy” and represented by two outstanding movements - Epicurean and Stoic philosophies (Epicureanism and Stoicism). These philosophical schools arise in special historical conditions, which determined the originality and content of the teachings of the Epicureans and Stoics. By this period, ancient philosophy, especially the teachings of Socrates, Democritus, Plato, Aristotle and others, were widespread in Asia Minor, Greece, and the Apennine Peninsula (present-day Italy). At the same time, the ancient world was approaching its decline, the entire system of social relations characteristic of the classical period was disrupted, there were clearly symptoms of a general crisis - a harbinger of decline, when everything was unsteady and unstable, and previous values ​​were questioned. Epicureanism and Stoicism represented the last attempt to defend the values Ancient world and Ancient culture. And in everyday life, people felt the fragility and instability of existence. Therefore, it is no coincidence that within the framework of philosophy and philosophizing, anthropological problem, the problem of man and how to preserve the dignity of human existence in a crisis. At the same time, the philosophy of this period acquired an existential and acutely humanistic character. And philosophy is understood (following Socrates) as a way of self-knowledge by a person of himself, comprehension of the essence and authenticity of human existence.

A) Epicureanism.

The founder of Epicurean philosophy was Epicurus (341 – 270 BC), and the outstanding successor of the ideas of Epicurus was the Roman philosopher Lucretius Carus(99 – 55 BC).

Epicurus created his own school of philosophers, the so-called. “The Garden of Epicurus” (the nickname of the Epicureans - philosophers from the Garden), on the gate of which there was an inscription: “Guest, you will feel good here; here pleasure is the highest good.”

If the subject of philosophy among the Epicureans is man and the essence of the authenticity of being, then its practical task is to, through reflection and research, teach a person to achieve a happy, serene life, free from human suffering. Epicurus puts forward demands for philosophy and the activities of philosophers: “The words of that philosopher are empty, with which no human suffering can be cured. Just as medicine is of no use if it does not expel diseases from the body, so does philosophy, if it does not drive out illnesses of the soul.".

In conditions of instability and instability of social relations, people are overcome by various fears and prejudices. And above all, fear of death, celestial phenomena and religious prejudices. Epicureans see a solution to this problem and the achievement of a happy, serene life on ways of enlightenment. Epicureanism is a kind of Enlightenment philosophy, and the basis is scientific, true knowledge about the world and existence, appealing to the human mind, devoid of prejudice and ignorance. As we see, the Epicureans follow the tradition of Socrates: true knowledge is good because it allows one to avoid mistakes and misconceptions that lead to misfortune (physical and spiritual suffering).

Epicurus forms a rationalistic attitude towards death: “Death, the most terrible of evils, has nothing to do with us, since when we exist, death is not yet present, and when death is present, then we do not exist.” Death is a natural and necessary moment of life. Therefore, overcoming fear, overcoming prejudice and ignorance, achieving a state of serenity and peace of mind of the sage (ataraxia), is a state when feelings do not rebel against reason.

Epicureans see the basis for peace in knowledge laws of nature, which are both eternal and stable, exist on their own and are not the result of supernatural forces. This is particularly convincing Lucretius Carus in his poetic treatise "On the Nature of Things". In their interpretation of nature they are materialists, followers of Democritus. Nature is primary, it consists of many atoms, infinite in their properties, therefore there are many worlds. Movement is an attribute, a property of natural phenomena themselves, generated by the property of gravity of atoms. The movement is orderly and objective. There is a necessity in nature within which man acts and which we can know through reason. But there is no God. For them acts as God sage, endowed with true knowledge, having an understanding of the essence of being (insight) and knowing the ways to achieve earthly happiness. Epicurean teaching is atheistic in nature, directed against religion, as a storehouse of prejudices. Lucretius Carus calls religion impious and vile, giving rise to criminal acts. (So, Agamemnon sacrifices (kills) his daughter out of faith that this will ensure a happy exit to the sea). Freedom of being and achieving a happy life lies in knowing the necessity of the laws of nature, and not in blind faith in the power of the Gods. They also reject the immortality of the soul, the existence of hell, the afterlife and the retribution of the Gods. The human soul is also mortal, like the body, since it also consists of atoms, but lighter ones.

For Epicureans, learning the laws of nature on which man relies in his activities is a complex process. They highlight sensory cognition, in which the actual properties of things are reproduced in a visual form. Therefore, sensory experience can be appealed to as evidence and reliability. And lying and error are associated with exaggeration of what we perceive. But still, sensory knowledge is limited, since it gives evidence about individual things and does not reveal the essence of things. Therefore, knowledge in concepts is deeper, since it reveals the essence of things and is universally significant, giving knowledge of necessity and the laws of nature. And the concepts themselves arise as memory and recollection (the tradition of Socrates). Sensory and conceptual (rational) knowledge seem to complement each other.

Knowledge of the laws of nature is necessary basis to achieve a happy life, but not enough. That's why they attach great importance moral and ethical values, knowledge of the true good, leading to the cherished goal - achieving a happy life in practice, within the confines of earthly existence. The “art of living” happily consists of two components: 1) from knowledge of the laws of nature, living in accordance with it, 2) from knowledge of truly moral values, goodness and kindness, as guidelines for a happy life. The Epicureans believe that the system positive pleasures, as evidence and as the content of joyful existence. A kind of hedonism. This is the optimistic character of the Epicurean philosophy. But do any pleasures lead to a truly happy life? The Epicureans insist that only those who are true spiritual pleasures, sublime pleasures, pleasures from doing good deeds. They build a hierarchy of pleasures, differentiating them. “When we say that pleasure is the ultimate goal, we do not mean the pleasures of libertines and not the pleasures of sensual pleasure, as some people think who do not know or disagree, or who misunderstand, but we mean freedom from bodily and mental anxieties.” , emphasizes Epicurus. So, natural pleasures are associated with a person’s bodily existence. They are natural and necessary(for example, pleasure from food, if within limits). If they violate the limit (gluttony), then they remain natural, but cease to be necessary.

The pleasures of the soul are truer and higher, since they are focused on moral and ethical values, on the value of true knowledge, which heal the soul and reduce its suffering. Among spiritual and moral values, the Epicureans attached special importance friendship, because it is valuable not only in itself, but it is the basis security, granted to her, “thanks to friendship, security is most fully realized.” Epicureans draw attention to the importance of individual freedom to achieve a good and happy life, which they understand as conscious choice pleasures for the soul, as the highest and true. From here they come to the idea that man himself determines his destiny, and not God. And in this regard, he is responsible for his choice, which determines the course and content of his entire life.

At the same time, it should be noted that Epicureanism is a philosophy of individualism, pursuing the goal of “surviving” in the conditions of an emerging crisis of the entire system of relations, the symptoms and signs of which were the moral decay of the society of that time. Therefore, they put forward a special principle of human existence - “live unnoticed.” In this independence of being, it is only possible to distance oneself from the spiritual and moral decay and vices that are widespread, and thereby preserve the dignity of genuine human existence.

The ancient philosophical movement of Stoicism is a kind of tribute to virtue, which teaches everyone morality, order and responsibility. These dogmas appeared during late Hellenism and existed for several centuries. This movement received its name, foundations and essence in Greece, but very soon became popular in the Roman Empire. It is impossible to talk about what Stoicism is in a nutshell. Therefore, based on the works of ancient sages, we will take a broader look at this concept.

Origin and description

The approximate date for the founding of the school of Stoicism is considered to be the 4th century. It was then that the first public speech of Zeno of Citium took place in the Portico of the Stoa Poicile. He played the role of a teacher and told everyone about his discoveries and thoughts in the field of philosophy. So he became the founder of a new school, which later literally acquired other dogmas and stereotypes. Generally speaking, stoicism in philosophy is masculinity, steadfastness, firmness and resistance to all life's trials. We can say with complete confidence that the image of a typical Stoic, as he was depicted in the imagination of the ancient sages, is firmly entrenched in the consciousness of European society. This term always characterizes a hardy, unsentimental person, one who feels a sense of duty to himself and others. It is also worth noting that stoicism is the rejection of any emotions, since they are what prevent a person from thinking sensibly and making rational decisions.

Periodization

Scientists have differing opinions on this issue. Some researchers identify in the history of the development of this school the so-called zero period. It is believed that in Stoa Poikil, sages who had precisely stoic views on life gathered 300 years before the birth of the founder of this movement. Unfortunately, all their names have been lost.

First period - Ancient Stoa. Lasted from the 4th to the 2nd centuries BC. Its main character was, of course, the founder - Zeno of Citium. Along with him were Cleanthes and Chrysippus from Sol. The first stage of Stoicism is considered to be exclusively Greek, since the teachings have not yet gone beyond the borders of this country. After the death of their mentors, their students took over their business. Among them we can distinguish Diogenes of Babylon, Crates of Mallus, Antipater and others.

The Middle Stoa, or Stoic Platonism. Existed from the 2nd to 1st centuries BC. Main characters era - Posidonius and Panetius of Rhodes. It was these representatives of Stoicism who began to transport their knowledge to Rome, where it later also became popular. Their students continued to develop the school - Dardanus, Diodotus, Athenodorus and others.

Late Standing- from the 1st to the 2nd centuries AD. This period is also known as Roman Stoicism, since it was in this state that the development of the doctrine already continued. The main representatives of the third era are Seneca and Epictetus.

What is this philosophy based on?

In order to understand how the sages of those times expressed their thoughts, what exactly they put into the heads of those around them, it is necessary to understand what the teaching of Stoicism was. The theory of this school, which Zeno “patented,” was divided into three parts. It was logic, physics and ethics (this is exactly the sequence). It has often been compared to a blooming garden, where logic is a protective fence, physics is a growing tree, and ethics is its fruit. Similarly, the egg was divided into these three parts - shell, white and yolk (in a known sequence). Zeno's colleague, Cleanthes, believed that Stoicism is a much broader teaching, therefore it should include more components. He introduced such sections as dialectics, rhetoric, politics, ethics, theology and physics. Those sages who continued to develop the doctrine after the death of the founders returned to the original theory, which included three elements.

Logics

The logic of the Stoics consists of purely theoretical conclusions, each of which must be correct. At the same time, we immediately note that it is impossible to compare them, since the theory of each subsequent one refutes the correctness of the previous one. It is necessary to go through this stage of the teaching because, as Chrysippus argued, this changes the state of the material soul. So, let's briefly consider a few logical conclusions of Stoicism:

• If A exists, then B also exists. A exists, therefore B also exists.
• A and B do not exist at the same time. And we have, which means B cannot exist.
• Either A or B exists. However, B is absent. Therefore A exists.

Physics

To understand this section, it is important to remember that Stoicism in philosophy is a purely material thing. It is on matter that all his teachings are based, which reject feelings, emotions, and other manifestations of something inexplicable and intangible. So, to the Stoics, the world is represented as a living organism, which is a material part of the material God, who created it all. This is exactly what man himself is, whose fate is predetermined by the Creator - in this context it is called fate. Therefore, any objection to the plan of the Almighty is meaningless and even punishable. The Stoics believe that on the way to fulfilling his duty, a person encounters passion, which becomes his main thorn. A person who has gotten rid of passions becomes strong and ready to fight. Strength, in turn, is the subtlest matter that is sent by the Lord.

Ethics of Stoicism

In the ethical aspect, the Stoics are comparable to the cosmopolitans. They assert that every person is a citizen of the universe, and everyone is equal before his Creator. On the same level are masters and slaves, barbarians and Greeks, men and women. Ancient stoicism teaches everyone to be kind, guides everyone on the true path, forces them to develop and improve themselves. At the same time, any deviations from dogmas, indulgence in passions or committing sins are considered a lower act. To put it more succinctly, the essence of the ethics of Stoicism is that everyone is part of a mosaic, one of many elements of the overall design. And the one who agrees with this, fate leads him, and the one who refutes his destiny, she drags him along.

Let's summarize this information

Now that we have looked at all the elements that make up Stoicism, let us briefly describe it. It is necessary to live in harmony with nature, without harming others and oneself. It is worth obeying your fate, going with the flow, since everything has its own reason. At the same time, it is necessary to remain impartial, strong and courageous. A person must always be ready to overcome any obstacle in order to become better and more useful to the world and to God. The characteristic of Stoicism also lies in its affects. There are four of them: disgust, pleasure, fear and lust. “Ortho Logos” - correct judgment - will help you avoid these.

Ancient Stoa and its development

In those centuries when Stoicism was just born in Ancient Greece, it was more theoretical in nature than practical. All the philosophers who were his adherents, including the founder himself, labored over the creation of a theory, the written basis of the new school. They succeeded, as we can see today. Specific logical conclusions appeared, a certain material base in the “physics” section, as well as results, which were entitled the word “ethics”. According to the ancient Greek sages, the essence of Stoicism lies precisely in argument. This is clearly demonstrated by conclusions that are considered logical. Perhaps it was the Stoics who were the authors of the famous expression “in dispute, truth is born.”

Middle stage of development

At the turn of the century, when Greece became a colony of the mighty and imperious Rome, the knowledge of the Hellenes became the property of the Empire. The Romans, in turn, preferred deeds to words, therefore this philosophical school ceased to be purely theoretical. Gradually, all the knowledge acquired by the Greeks began to be put into practice. It was the quotes of the Greek sages that motivated many warriors. Their words served as support and support for people who were lost in life. Moreover, over the years, Stoicism became so ingrained in society that the lines gradually began to blur (but not completely) between slaves and masters, as well as between the sexes. In a word, Roman society became more humane, reasonable and educated.

Roman philosophy. Stoicism in its final years

At dawn new era this movement has already become a kind of religion and an unwritten life charter for every Roman. All the logic of Stoicism, its conclusions, laws and metaphors are a thing of the past. The main ideas of the Greek sages came to life - the materiality of everything and everyone, impartiality and submission to fate. But here it is necessary to highlight that it was at this time that Christianity began to spread throughout the world, which gradually conquered all the countries of Europe and Asia. But what were things like in the Roman Empire? For the Romans, Stoicism is everything. This teaching was their life, their faith. They believed that man should be as close to nature as possible. He must remain cold, extremely calm and restrained. But the main idea that the Romans themselves came up with, based on the knowledge of the Greeks, is the fight against the fear of death. In their opinion, a person who has overcome this flaw becomes one of the most important links in the Universe.

Features of the development of Stoicism in Rome

It is clear that if we are talking about death, about fears, then this is a clear sign that philosophy is turning into theology. The second, as you know, people are afraid of, and therefore they submit to all dogmas, following unconditionally every rule. In the last years of its existence, Roman Stoicism acquired not only enormous proportions, but also pessimistic motives. For its representatives (and this was the overwhelming majority of the elite of society), what was important was not self-development and unity with nature, but complete submission to fate, up to the loss of one’s own “I”. The main task was to cope with the fear of death. That is, everyone was determined that at any moment he might not exist, and there was nothing terrible about that. Such motives are especially clearly visible in the work of Epictetus. They took root after Marcus Aurelius himself, the emperor of a great power, adopted Stoicism.

Contact with Christianity

In the early years of its existence, the Christian religion did not find adherents in every corner of the globe. For a long time, peoples could not abandon ancient beliefs, the traditions of their ancestors. In some cases they were combined with Christianity (dualism), the same trend was observed in the Roman Empire. From the first century AD, stoicism began to spread in the state on a huge scale. This could be compared to new laws that became mandatory for everyone. The Romans were literally obsessed with apathy and unity with nature, but very soon their views began to change under the influence of the new faith. For a long time, the people, including the ruling dynasty, did not accept Christianity. As the years passed, the foundations of these theological teachings began to complement each other. It is worth considering that Christianity at that time was the youngest religion; it needed a certain basis, which Stoicism was able to provide it with. Nowadays we can clearly trace this relationship. After all, in both theories we are told that we cannot be partial, we must not indulge in vices, evil, or fear. Both Christianity and Stoicism are teachings about kindness, knowledge, strength, and also that the ways of the Lord are inscrutable, and each of us must be submissive to the Higher Plan.

Paradoxes and incidents

It often happens that a certain doctrine, which stretches over several centuries, is therefore compiled by different people, as a result, it consists of inconsistencies and some absurdities. This is exactly what Stoicism is in philosophy. This teaching originated in the 4th century BC and existed for 600 years after that. In the course of development, there was not only a transition from apatism to pessimism. At the center of the problem was the fact that man is simultaneously subject to God and his plans, but at the same time remains internally free. It was spiritual restlessness that many Stoics preached, both in Greece and Rome. Modern researchers believe that this is one of the aspects of logical teaching. The first conclusion excludes the correctness of the second, and vice versa.

Stoicism today

It is almost impossible to meet a typical Stoic in the 21st century. The dogmas of ancient teaching are comprehended either by researchers who are closely involved in this, or by theologians, while adherents are predominantly eastern religions(there are more similarities with the philosophy of Stoicism). Each of us can, to a small extent, gain the knowledge of ancient authors from the Bible. To be fair, even most of the sacred commandments are based on the ancient theology of the Romans. But sometimes people of our time are still called Stoics. This happens when a person completely gives up, becomes a fatalist, and loses all faith in himself and his capabilities. Such people are typical apaths who take for granted any turn of fate, any loss or discovery. They don’t really enjoy life and don’t get upset if something terrible happens.

Afterword

Stoicism in philosophy is a whole science that has existed for centuries and gave rise to many knowledge and teachings that appeared in the Middle Ages. The Stoics believed that the Universe is material, and each of its cells, each element has its own destiny and purpose. Therefore, under no circumstances should one resist the events that are taking place. Everything that happens has its reasons, and a person living in harmony with nature, with this course life situations, will be a worthy part of the Universe. The one who opposes all this will be unhappy. For his fate is predetermined in any case, and there is no escape from it. Because everyone has a choice. A person can come to terms with fate and live in happiness and rapture until death. Or resist everything, making yourself and those around you unhappy.